I'm making the example simplistic so you understand the concept. Do you agree with the conclusion of my example. You wanna get somewhere, start there.

You want to get to the storm/butterfly emerging scenario, well so do I but you won't take that right off the bat so I'm giving you a simpler scenario.

So you except my conclusion about the book and the butterfly and the fan?

click here

I repost this comment of mine for you to refute if you can?

If they bring me the actual tiny Butterfield that caused a cyclone or tornado on the other side of the world from where if first flapped its very dangerous little wings, then and only then will my little doggy ears rise up like radar antennas and only then will I worry about it or take even the minutest interest in what is an unprovable theory, yes it is just a theory no one has proved it and no one can ever prove it. :bigsmile:

If we take this theory to the limit, then why cant the little butterfly somewhere in China, by flapping its tiny wings, bring down and destroy the whole universe , why not?, we just need to extrapolate the theory don't we

Its simple enough but not correct and you know it..Certain events can be triggered by very small additions but a butterfly and a hurricane no way Jose..There is no one with sufficient logic that can convince me that a butterflies addition would make the slightest difference to an accumulation of meteorological activity.

It is not an unprovable theory. It is blatently conceptually possible to prove, yet next to impossible to do so because of the amount of data needed to do so but again not impossible. If there was an omnipotent being onmiscient it could calculate it in the blink of an eye exactly because it would have all the data necessary to make such a calculation. You are disregarding it because we haven't produced visible evidence for you. The limits of mankind do not disprove something simply because we can not calculate it. It is as if you are saying "well you can't disprove that the lochness monster does not exist even if you searched the entire lake all at one time."

I think you are misunderstanding chaos theory still. If you do understand it then you are unknowingly disregarding scientific laws.





Well then you are obviously disregarding science and we might as well cease discusion. You hold so dearly to science in a thread on ID but push it away when you do not like the implications of it on another topic.

Disregard science..:perplexed: you who proposed that man was made in less than a day:perplexed:i dont ever disregard science , the science of logic. You can not give me the evidence of your proposed theory just rhetoric..i dont blame you for retiring , an impossible task it only ever requested you withdraw from the debate..

There is no one with sufficient logic that can convince me that a butterflies addition would make the slightest difference to an accumulation of meteorological activity.

I am not saying that the butterfly has no effect on its surroundings everything is related in the greater scheme of things BUT i dont believe a butterfly flapping his wings can influence the weather in even the smallest of terms.Exaggerations never tell the truth and are only for musing.I can be persuaded but only by scientific logic not grand insignificant statements.The final snow drop on a branch, a final breath of wind on a leaf they are all pivotal moments but a butterfly can not instigate or even turn a breeze into a gust..

Sure it can influence the weather in small terms. Any 'large' actions (huricane, volcano, blizzard) are all a combination of the smallest of particles all being viewed of their effects in unison.

xris, I would really like to hear your opinions towards free will and consciousness one of these days.

The butterfly effect does not state that 1 butterfly is soley responsible for the creation of a tornado. It is stating that that butterfly could be the one grain of rice to tip the scale. It is by definition true.

Everything causes everything else then, is that the proposition?When does fact become silliness and silliness fact.Certain causes and effects are reasonable assumptions but others are pure semantics.I question the validity of the proposal that a butterfly can alter the weather pattern in even the smallest amount..but i can be persuaded by logic not semantics.

Everything causes everything else then, is that the proposition?When does fact become silliness and silliness fact.Certain causes and effects are reasonable assumptions but others are pure semantics.I question the validity of the proposal that a butterfly can alter the weather pattern in even the smallest amount..but i can be persuaded by logic not semantics.

In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems - that is, systems whose states evolve with time - that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved, this behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

To biggest butterfly that ever flew was the Big Bang!

I don't think that's a good example Alan, it was hardly insignificant.

To accept that certain small events in a chaotic world can have enormous and long lasting effects is not rocket science and not very revealing to those who have studied any historic event.
My problem with this theory is that it gives the impression that every small event contributes to world events.It gives the impression that a butterfly can or could create a significant change in the weather, it cant.Its the wrong example,it makes the probable look seriously questionable.

I don't understand how you can acknowledge that 'small events in a chaotic world can have enormous and long lasting effects' but then deny that a butterfly could significantly change the whether. Maybe a butterfly never has, but why is it impossible that it could? I'm sure one could make a computer model of some weather pattern on the extremely narrow edge of a radical tipping point, introduce a butterfly, and show that its activitity (which let's say increases the air pressure by a fraction in just the right region of the storm system) could be the difference between a tornado and no tornado.

Go for it, give me the scenario and how the weather pattern altered because a butterfly flapped his wing.Ill give you a little creative invention for effect.